Brazil's 2013 Protests

October 06, 2014

After one of the most complex and fast-changing presidencial races in decades, Brazil held an election on Sunday that revealed little of the sentiment for change during last year's protests. So what happened?

First of all, Marina Silva only won 21 percent of the vote, a result of a number of factors including successful attack ads by the Workers' Party and a poorly executed campaign that didn't convince voters that she would be a viable alternative. Instead, Senator Aécio Neves came within 8 points of President Dilma Rousseff. While he would certainly represent a change at the Planalto, he represents the most traditional of Brazilian politics: a wealthy, white, seasoned politician from Minas Gerais. And even though neither Rousseff nor Neves represent a major break from the status quo, they both referred to themselves as the candidate for change in their victory speeches. During her address, Rousseff stood before a massive backdrop that read: "New government, new ideas." As the two candidates head to a runoff, they're both jockeying for Silva's voters and trying to cast themselves as change-makers.

Next, many politicians targeted by the 2013 protests were actually reelected. Despite the fact that corruption was one of the central themes of the protests and a constant complaint of those unhappy with Brazilian politics, notoriously dirty politicians like Paulo Maluf and Fernando Collor got elected. (It's unclear, however, if Maluf will be able to take office given his ineligibility under the clean record law.) São Paulo Governor Geraldo Alckmin was reelected in spite of the capital city running out of water, among other things, and the reviled former Rio Governor Sérgio Cabral's successor, Pezão, is headed for a runoff. Politicians who've come under fire for their homophobic views and bigoted behavior like Marco Feliciano and Jair Bolsonaro won reelection.

On the legislative front, this Congress is the most conservative elected since the post-1964 period, according to the Intersyndical Parliamentary Assistance Department. A larger number of members of the armed forces, religious groups, and agribusiness representatives won seats. Meanwhile, two of the country's biggest parties, the PT and PMDB, lost 18 and 5 seats, respectively in the Chamber of Deputies and one seat each in the Senate. (They still, however, represent the biggest parties in Congress.) The right-leaning PSDB, meanwhile, gained 10 seats in the lower house. Now, in the already fractured party system, there are even more parties in the legislature, rising from 22 to 28.

Theory 1: Brazilians don't feel they're represented by the options at the ballot box, and they're so tired of the status quo that they don't bother to pick any candidates. Abstention stood at 19 percent, the highest level since 1998. The combined number of those who didn't vote and those who voted blank and null amounted to nearly 39 million people--more people than those who voted for Neves. Null and blank votes for federal representatives in São Paulo doubled since 2002, and tripled in Rio.

Theory 2: Change is slow. "When things change very quickly, as in Brazil's case since democratization, people get used to making a safe vote," wrote São Paulo-based journalist Leandro Beguoci on Twitter. One sign of a little bit of change involves the PSOL, a left-wing party well-positioned to plug into the protesters' demands. It saw a handful of modest successes in the election. Congressman and LGBT activist Jean Wyllys was reelected in Rio, and was the seventh-most voted federal deputy in the state. Rio state lawmaker and human rights advocate Marcelo Freixo won also won reelection and helped double the number of PSOL representatives in the state legislature. The PSOL's presidential candidate, Luciana Genro, came in fourth place, winning over 1.6 million votes. This represents an 82 percent increase over what the PSOL candidate earned in the 2010 election.

Theory 3: The protests weren't directed at a specific political party, but rather institutions overall, writes journalist Leandro Sakamoto on his blog. "A deep and structural societal change doesn't happen overnight..those young people didn't ask for a new government, but something deeper," he says. By this account, change is going to be gradual and will come from more than a single election.

Theory 4: It's precisely the growth of the new middle class that's spurring a move away from the PT and toward more conservative politicians. "Brazilians face the challenge of updating their politics to match emerging voter sophistication and demands for less corrupt, more efficient public spending," writes Rio-based blogger Julia Michaels. "Paradoxically, it may be that part of Dilma’s Workers’ Party shrinking appeal is due to a growing conservatism on the part of those who have left poverty during their watch. Voters may not see (or believe in) a clear economic-political connection." Sakamoto adds a similar idea: "This conservatism isn't necessarily the fruit of reflection, but comes from the fear of losing the little they've managed to achieve and to become a nobody."

Editor's note: This article previously inaccurately stated that César Maia was elected. He did not win, as only one senatorial seat was open in Rio. He was, however, the second-most voted senatorial candidate in the state.

October 02, 2014

She was given a real shot at Brazil's presidency during a time when President Dilma Rousseff faces a number of serious challenges. And she just might have blown it already. In fact, as she has fallen in the polls, third-place contender Aécio Neves has been creeping up, with the potential to knock her out of a second round. So why hasn't Marina Silva lived up to the hype?

There are a number of factors working in her favor. After massive protests last year, there's a portion of the Brazilian population hungry for change. The Workers' Party has been in power for over a decade, leading to "PT fatigue" and bitterness about political corruption. Brazil is technically in a recession as the economy has slowed. And the president's approval ratings haven't been high.

Yet Marina hasn't been able to fully channel this dissatisfaction, nor able to fully take advantage of the country's situation. Instead, she's left voters scratching their heads about what she really stands for and what she would be like as a leader. And in some cases, she has simply alienated her potential voters.

First, she's been flip-flopping on a variety of issues from gay marriage to the country's amnesty law. She's irritated some supporters by meeting with investors and agrobusinessmen. The LGBT issue was particularly bad, given that some worried that her religious beliefs could influence how she would govern, and her change in stance on gay marriage came after complaints from evangelical leaders.

Next, she's come under constant attack from the president's campaign team. But she hasn't been very successful in responding.

Some of these ads warned that under Marina, all of Brazil's gains would literally disappear. Given the number of Brazilians who have left poverty and have joined the new middle class since the PT came into power, it's understandable how this kind of fear-mongering could be so effective.

But Marina's team wasn't very good at changing people's perceptions, and hasn't been able to react to the attack ads. Instead, her team has used a lot of rhetoric about Rousseff lying, in commercials like this which are not very impressive. The "liar, liar, pants on fire" line isn't particularly convincing.

This week, her team tried to step up her game, making better use of tapping into demands from last year's protests and highlighting complaints about quality of life and public services that many have.

She also went on the attack about corruption, something Aécio Neves has been more vocal about on the campaign trail.

But was it too little, too late?

Given the smaller window of time she's had to campaign since she became a candidate two months ago, she could have done more up front to tap into protester demands, and to capitalize on PT fatigue, especially when it comes to corruption. She could have stuck to her guns and demonstrated a clearer, more coherent platform and stance on key issues. And maybe she could have waited to court different interests until she made it to a second round. In an effort to gain mass appeal, she ended up trying to be a chameleon, but it didn't work.

Marina Motta, a Rio human rights researcher, told PRI's The World this week that the PT is "a decadent, sold-out party but it’s a historical, consistent party." Voting for the PT and Dilma, she explained, is playing it safe and voting for the devil you know. In Marina's case, no one seems to quite know who she is. And even though she represents change, voters may be wary of just what that change would mean.

September 18, 2014

On October 5, Brazilians will decide their next president. It could have been a straightforward reelection victory for Dilma Rousseff, but given an unexpected and tragic twist, it has become a much closer race. Because of the death of candidate Eduardo Campos in a plane crash in July, Marina Silva has become a real contender and has knocked Dilma's former main competitor, Aécio Neves, into third place. Marina has gone from a quirky third-place candidate in the 2010 elections to a real threat to a sitting president.

Since I've been following the campaign, I wanted to share some insights I've noticed about this particular race.

10. On voter issues, the economy matters less than quality of life.

In the press, there's been much ado about the economy being in recession and creeping inflation. But until the unemployment rate begins to rise in a significant way and people begin to feel a real impact on their wallets, the economy itself may not have a very big effect on this election. Instead, the big issue is a stagnated quality of life, including insecurity and poor public services. Voters care less about GDP growth than the hours of traffic they sit in to get to work every day and having to worry about muggings and carjackings.

9. The 2013 protests changed the game, and Marina stands to benefit the most.

These same quality of life issues were the ones that helped fuel the 2013 protests, and while the government scrambled to try to address demonstrators' concerns, Dilma's administration wasn't entirely successful given the wide range of complaints. Instead, a lingering sense of disillusionment remained. Neves, a wealthy, white, right-leaning senator and a a former governor, is the most traditional candidate of the three main candidates, while Marina is more of a political outsider. As a result, she's trying to cast herself as the candidate for change, hoping to be the one disgruntled voters choose when they're channeling that post-protest anger. She's the "product of a moment, not of the construction of a platform," writes journalist Mauricio Savarese.

8. Corruption is an issue, but it's always an issue.

The latest corruption scandal that broke this month involves Petrobras and a whole host of legislators, a minister, and governors accused of taking kickbacks. Calling it "mensalão 2," Neves is the one trying to capitalize on the scandal and to try to turn more people against the ruling Workers' Party. Plus, one of the accused governors is the late Eduardo Campos. But this is hardly Brazil's first corruption scandal, and it's not the first time a scandal has happened before an election.

7. There's been much ado about religion in this election, but there are bigger issues at play.

The power of the evangelicals has been in the spotlight. This is largely due to Marina's flip-flopping on LGBT rights as she came under pressure from fellow evangelicals, as well as commentary from high-profile evangelicals like Silas Malafaia during the campaign. Plus, Dilma has been courting the evangicals, too, showing up at the inauguration of the massive "Solomon's temple" in São Paulo in July. There's also been criticism of Marina's evangelical beliefs, as well as rumors that she'd impose her religious beliefs on government if she was elected. While the evangelical vote is an important one, Marina's not the only candidate on the ballot that evangelicals may vote for (there's an evangelical pastor polling fourth.) And while polls show evangelicals tend to lean more toward Marina than Dilma, religion is not the make or break issue for the election.

6. Polls provide a big picture, but they're not always accurate.

In 2010, Marina polled lower than the votes she actually received, at around 20 percent. In recent weeks, by contrast, many surveys show her winning against Dilma in a runoff. It's the same case in other Latin American countries that polling isn't always spot-on. In Costa Rica, for example, the candidate polling fourth ended up winning the election this year. That won't happen in Brazil, but polls may not match up to election day results.

5. Lula made Dilma his protégé, but Marina's background is more similar to Lula's.

Arguably one of Brazil's most famous global leaders, who still in some ways has more clout than Dilma, Lula was unique when he was elected given his background of growing up poor in the northeast and working his way up as a labor leader. Lula built his legacy on creating programs to reduce poverty and building his support base among the country's poor. And while Dilma has continued his policies, her background is upper middle class. Meanwhile, Marina grew up very poor in a remote, rural state and has taken a new tactic to highlight her background in an emotional new ad. She vows to continue Bolsa Familia, the country's anti-poverty cash-transfer program, and spoke about battling hunger as a child, in a way that echoed Lula's approach.

4. Parties matter, when it comes to the Workers' Party and those without a party.

After 12 years of the Workers' Party in power, there's a fair amount of PT fatigue in Brazil. Among those who oppose the PT, there's a lot of distrust when it comes to corruption, and some are apt to blame the party for just about anything. So if it comes down to a Dilma vs. Marina runoff, as polls predict, it's likely that right-leaning voters are going to pick Marina, just based on the hopes of expelling the PT from the Planalto. On the other hand, the PT still enjoys wide support, especially in the northeast.

At the same time, part of Marina's base--young, well-educated, and middle-class--have little or no party ties. In fact, a Data Popular survey of 16 to 33-year-olds found that a majority think the country would be better off without political parties. That's good for Marina, who's running on a ticket she joined after she was unable to create her own new party. Plus, it's precisely this PT fatigue and feeling that the party isn't helping the country that has helped fuel Marina's rapid rise.

3. Voting is mandatory in Brazil, but that doesn't stop people from skipping the vote or voting blank.

While Marina could benefit from voters wanting change, those same voters could either sit out (and risk paying a very small fine), or vote blank in protest. During the first round of the 2010 presidential election, around 18 percent abstained and around 8 percent cast null or blank votes. Given last year's demonstrations and dissatisfaction with the current administration, voting blank could be a form of protest in this election.

2. It's likely the election will be decided in a runoff, so the game isn't over yet.

Even though the polls may not be exact, it looks like Dilma is not going to get enough votes to avoid a second round. So while these last weeks leading up to the first round will be important, October will be even more critical. Dilma and her team have been hitting Marina hard, and how Marina handles the pressure will be important.

1. Don't underestimate the power of an incumbent.

In the past three decades, only two Latin American presidents have lost reelection bids. In Colombia this year, it really looked like President Juan Manuel Santos was going to lose, especially after his opponent beat him in the first round. But he eked out a victory by roughly six points in a runoff. That's a possible outcome for Dilma, too.

June 03, 2014

Social media is going to play a big role in the upcoming World Cup, especially given the controversial nature of this year's games. A new Pew survey released today found that 61 percent of Brazilians think the event will be bad for the country because they say it takes money away from areas such as education and health; 34 percent support the event because they say it will create jobs. Around 39 percent think the World Cup will hurt Brazil's international image; 35 percent say it will help.

And it's precisely this kind of division that you'll find in social media.

#NãoVaiTerCopa: This hashtag, "there won't be a World Cup," emerged during the June 2013 demonstrations as a way to protest the upcoming mega-event. When some use it, it's almost like a threat, but a lot of what you'll see is people using it to show their opposition to the event or its costs, or to complain about problems associated with the World Cup or lack of preparation for the games.

#VaiTerCopa: The flipside of the previous hashtag, this hashtag of "there will be a World Cup" is being used as an affirmation of the games and as a way to show support for the event and the Brazilian team. It's also used as a way to talk about good preparation for the World Cup or things that are going well in terms of the event. Another alternative is #VaiTerCopaSim (Yes, there will be a World Cup). Still, it is sometimes used ironically to poke fun at things like broken English or problems ahead of the event.

#VaiTerGreve: "There will be strikes." This hashtag refers to the number of strikes that cropped up across the country ahead of the World Cup, with the potential for more to come.

#ImaginaNaCopa: "Just imagine during the World Cup." This hashtag has been around for around two years as a lament as to what the mega-event will be like given challenges the country faces. It also inspired a group of young people to turn the phrase on its head by promoting social projects and organizations across the country.

#CopadasCopas: "The Cup of All Cups!" This is the hashtag the Brazilian government created as an alternative to #NãoVaiTerCopa. It's been getting plenty of play on government channels, but isn't as popular as #VaiTerCopa.

#PadrãoFIFA: "FIFA Standards." This is generally used as a criticism of things in Brazil that aren't up to par, like transportation or hospitals. This phrase has been used as part of protests that while the country built stadiums up to FIFA standards, areas like health and education aren't up to snuff.

#CopadoMundo: This is the generic hashtag for the World Cup in Portuguese.

#RumoAoHexa: "Road to the Sixth." This refers to Brazil being on its way to winning its sixth World Cup, and is being used largely in a sports context.

May 04, 2014

Has Rio's favela pacification actually helped give the city's poorest a greater voice? And could these favela protests be a surprise during the World Cup?

The Context: Rio's Divided City

In Rio, favelas are also known as the morro, or the hill, since many favelas are built on the city's higher elevations, while the city, practically seen as an altogether different entity, is referred to as the asfalto, or asphalt. And because of this gulf between the favelas and the rest of the city and the long-standing division between favela residents and the rest of Cariocas, the concept of descer do morro--to come down from the hill--is something that makes people very nervous. There's even a samba called "The Day the Morro Comes Down When It's Not Carnival" about what would happen if favela residents "came down the hill" en masse.

What's Been Happening

I started noticing it during the June protests last year. There was a protest in Rio's Maré favela against police brutality there (pictured in the photo above), which gained some traction in the media. And since then, these types of protests have been cropping up throughout Rio, largely against police violence as well as forced removals.

In April, there were at least three cases of these types of demonstrations. The most visible was that of protests in Copacabana after the death of Douglas Rafael da Silva, or DG, a dancer who appeared on a popular TV show who was allegedly murdered by pacification police in the Pavão-Pavãozinho favela. These protests resulted in one death and spurred fear in a traditionally middle class neighborhood, with streets shut down and fires burning, inspiring panicky headlines in the local media.

It's not completely unheard of for favela residents to protest. But the past year has been interesting to watch.

Recently, there have been allegations that drug traffickers are paying favela residents to protest. The argument could be sustained based on the fact that traffickers have a lot to gain if pacification fails and they would be happy to support the growing wave of pessimism and opposition to pacification. But it seems unlikely this is the case across the board, especially during the Copacabana protests.

"When organized resistance comes from the favelas, there is often an assumption that jailed drug traffickers or criminals are behind them. This gives police the authority to use excessive force, under the blanket excuse of keeping the peace and self-defense. As community reporting and social media continue to expand and be used by more and more favela residents, impunity and injustice will be harder to hide."

In a forthcoming interview to be published on this blog, political scientist and Amnesty International Brasil advisor Mauricio Santoro noted that while localized favela protests have been happening since the 1970s, what's new is that protesters from favelas are now creating closer ties to social movements and activists from the middle class. Plus, when a large number of favela residents "came down the hill" from Vidigal and Rocinha to protest in front of the governor's home with other Cariocas last year, "it was something I'd never seen before," Santoro said.

Perhaps pacification, despite its numerous problems, may actually be giving favela residents a louder voice. Because pacification is so visible given the city's mega-events, and because the program a constant in the local and international media, there's greater opportunity to reveal police abuses to the world. And unfortunately, pacification police give residents plenty of reason to demonstrate--namely, by killing innocent people. That police have been committing abuses in favelas is nothing new, but with a widely publicized government security strategy in place and traffickers having less tight grip over communities, residents are able to pull back the curtain on what's happening. And because the city is in the spotlight, more people are watching.

The Possibility of World Cup Protests

Many want to know if there will be protests on the scale of last year during the upcoming World Cup, especially in Rio, where an estimated 400,000 tourists will stay during the games. It's hard to predict, though small protests involving the Black Blocs seem likely. But the favela protests could be an altogether different case.

Here are some of the risk factors for favela protests:

Pacification has become increasingly unpopular, with more scrutiny in the media. Another tragic incident could set off a demonstration.

If there's another victim of violence with strong ties to the asfalto, as the case with DG, there's a greater chance of larger and more visible protests.

Social media has helped spread word of favela protests and police abuses in Rio. A recent campaign following DG's death went viral, with people taking photos holding up signs saying: "I don't deserve to be murdered."

The World Cup is an opportunity to make an impact on a global scale. Santoro pointed out that event a single large demonstration will have repercussions beyond Brazil's borders. "All of the elements exist for that to happen," he said, though it will depend on how police and authorities act, among other factors. "The whole world will be watching."

Image: Eric Andriolo. A protest in Maré last July against police brutality.

February 26, 2014

If Brazil is not for beginners, as the saying goes, then Venezuela isn't, either. But as far as the two countries' recent protest experiences go, they have a few interesting elements in common.

At first glance, the countries seem quite different: Venezuela is deeply and bitterly politically polarized, with shortages of basic food staples and goods, rising inflation, spiraling crime rates, and what some say is a breakdown of institutions. Venezuela's protests have resulted in the arrest of a high-profile member of the opposition, plus a higher death toll with more reports of brutality from both state security forces and paramilitaries. The demonstrations are openly politicized, as the opposition and government face off in what has been an increasingly tense battle.

But at the heart of the protests in both countries is also a desire for an improved quality of life and a demand for accountability.

As Venezuela marks two weeks of major demonstrations, some observers have drawn contrasts with Brazil. There was, for example, the goverment reaction at a policy level. In Brazil, there was hand-wringing and emergency meetings, carefully scripted, pre-recorded remarks from the president, congressional action, and swift promises for reform. In Venezuela, there was a lot of angry rhetoric blaming everyone from the Americans to the Colombians, as the president danced merengue on national TV, declared a new national holiday to extend the upcoming Carnival break, and sat for an interview involving fun with charts featuring possibly invented statistics. (Tonight, there was a peace conference intended to bring people together for a dialogue, though some members of the opposition refused to go.)

From The New York Times:

"Unlike the protests in neighboring Brazil last year, when the government tried to defuse anger by promising to fix ailing services and make changes to the political system, Mr. Maduro says the protesters are fascists conducting a coup against his government. He has largely refused to acknowledge their complaints, focusing instead on violence linked to the unrest. Here in Táchira State, he says the protests are infiltrated by right-wing Colombian paramilitary groups, and he has threatened to arrest the mayor of San Cristóbal."

But others have found some things in common between the two.

In what is mostly a remarkably balanced op-ed, Brazilian Congressman Jean Wyllys points out that some Brazilians have criticized protesters in their own country, calling them vandals, while at the same time praising Venezuela's demonstrators. Both countries have the right to protest, he says, in spite of the differences in policies or governments, and citizens of both countries have demanded their right to be heard and to get a legitimate response.

"The Venezuelans that are dissatisfied with the situation of the country have the right to protest against the government. Protest isn't a coup--even if some ruling party members say it is, in both Venezuela and Brazil--in fact, it's a fundamental civil right...If thousands of people are in the streets protesting against a government's policies, that shouldn't be considered a mere mistake by the government; first the government should reflect on what could be so wrong as to result in bringing so many to the streets!"

"We even had our own exceptional moment, which was the June protests, in which there was no repression. We live with democracy, we think that those who have democracy will always want more democracy. Those who experience development want more development. And those who have public services want to improve them, expand them, and will want more. So, we're a country that we're happy to say that we've matured when it comes to democracy."

This could also apply to Venezuela, and looking at poll numbers, you'll find similarities. Both countries, for example, are displeased with the way things are going: a recent Gallup survey found that only 44 percent of Brazilians and 40 percent of Venezuelans are happy with their country's direction.

Released this week, a Gallup poll conducted in September and October shows that Venezuelans have grown increasingly pessimistic. Over 60 percent think the economy is getting worse, and around 80 percent don't feel safe walking alone at night. About 33 percent think their standard of living is getting worse--up from only 11 percent a year earlier. Another 33 percent say their standard of living is actually getting better, but that number declined from 54 percent in 2012.

Similarly, Gallup showed in June that 55 percent of Brazilians were dissatisfied with the direction of the country, and 41 percent said the national economy was going poorly. When asked about the country's priorities, 85 percent said law and order was important, but 14 percent said the country could be described as having adequate law and order. A February CNT survey found that 77 percent of Brazilians feel urban violence is getting worse; a National Victimization Survey released in December revealed that half of Brazilians are "very afraid" of becoming a murder victim. And a November Boston Consulting Group poll found that only 31 percent of Brazilians feel that on a personal level, they are financially secure.

So while Venezuela has some extremely complex political issues at play with more serious economic hurdles, there are also basic issues at hand that Brazilians share: the desire to feel safe, to be able to afford things they both want and need, and to feel a sense of advancing in life, rather than backsliding. They both seem to want a better quality of life.

"The people are marching for access to food, for some sense of economic stability," writes Venezuelan-American blogger Veronica Bayetti Flores of Venezuela's protesters. "Lots of them are angry bourgeois; a lot of them also are folks who can’t afford to send maids to stand in line for four hours to get basic staples on their table, folks who have spotty access to electricity and water." But perhaps it was a mother in the Venezuelan city of Valencia who put it simplest. "I don't support any political party," she told Reuters. "I just want to live, to do my shopping and not get killed."

January 26, 2014

You've probably heard about the World Cup protests in Brazil this weekend. They were scheduled in over 30 cities, but didn't see very big crowds, except in São Paulo. In that city, crowd estimates ran from 1,000 to 2,500 people; one protester was shot by military police, and nearly 130 people were arrested.

What's behind the rallying cry of these protests, "não vai ter Copa," or there won't be a World Cup? And why is the government using social media to try to put an end to this idea?

The phrase emerged during the June protests, and a movement was created around it. You can find Não Vai Ter Copa groups on Facebook, and proponents use the hashtag #NaoVaiTerCopa on Twitter. Aside from this weekend's protests--which organizers hope to repeat leading up to the games--the movement has mostly taken place on social media. It's also been adopted by Anonymous, which argues that the government is spending too much money on the event and not enough on education and health. The hacker group has used the phrase during recent hackings of government sites and social media accounts.

Because the June protests were catalyzed on social media and spread across the country using these networks, the government doesn't want to be caught off guard like it was last time. This week, one of the president's top ministers admitted that the 2013 demonstrations left government officials "afraid" and "perplexed." He added: "[There was] a certain pain, an incomprehension, and almost a feeling of ingratitude. [It was] like saying: we've done so much for these people, and now they're rising up against us." And importantly, he also pointed out that internet culture influenced the protests, in that people now expect things in life to move more quickly, given the speed with which things take place online.

As such, the government wants to get ahead of the Não Vai Ter Copa movement. It's trying to prevent more protests, especially ones that could be tied to the Black Blocs group or with potential for violence. In a way, it wants to discredit the movement by attempting to prove that the World Cup will be beneficial for Brazilians. The definitive nature of the slogan, which could be seen as a way of implying that people could disrupt the games, has really shaken the powers that be.

So on January 10, President Dilma Rousseff tapped two federal officials to "promote a dialogue" with social movements and citizens about the World Cup. A few days later, the Worker's Party began promoting the hashtag #VaiTerCopa, or "There will be a World Cup." But this reactive and somewhat scolding phrase was quickly abandoned.

After that, the motto was replaced with #CopadasCopas, or Cup of Cups, which is now being used on the president's Twitter and Facebook pages, as well as other government social media profiles. After Rousseff had announced this so-called dialogue with social groups, a government spokesperson said on January 22 that the government would not in fact engage the #NaoVaiTerCopa movement. "It doesn't make sense," he said. Instead, the idea is to deny rumors or falsehoods about the government and to share positive messages. So far, the government's social media messaging has been that the World Cup will bring benefits to all Brazilians, like urban transport and jobs.

This stands in direct contrast to what at least one expert says is a successful digital strategy for the government. In August, when I interviewed Fábio Malini, who studies data patterns in Brazilian social media at the Federal University of Espirito Santo's Research Laboratory on Internet and Cyberculture, this is what he said:

"When the government starts an open dialogue online, it has to adapt to the reality of the web. It’s a reality in which there’s no possibility to construct a singular truth. The government must create space, especially multimedia spaces, to form a direct dialogue. Whether it’s the president, her ministers, or the government’s technocrats, they should be in direct contact in real time, live in some cases, with people who have different political positions and demands."

My guess is that this unilateral approach won't be very successful in discrediting or weakening the #NaoVaiTerCopa movement. At the same time, the movement is still relatively small and with less than five months remaining until the games, it seems impossible that the Cup won't happen. Plus, by devoting so much time and energy to fighting this group, the government could actually be giving it more clout and legitimacy than it would otherwise receive.

At this point, protests during the games seem inevitable, and containing them with better trained, less violent security forces seems like a better approach than trying to outright prevent them. But the government's already thought of that, too. Along with new riot police units to be deployed during protests, the military will be on standby to replace police, when necessary. In any event, it's one of the first times the Brazilian federal government is employing social media with a preventative, proactive approach in response to a social movement. Engagement, however, may have to wait.